MEDIA ALERT
Guardian Wrong to Praise Business on Global Warming
19 July, 2001
To what extent is business a positive force for good in
a world undergoing potentially devastating human-induced climate change? In
the week that government leaders are meeting in Bonn to discuss the
rapidly-crumbling Kyoto Protocol, The Guardian takes a look at the climate
debate ('Melt Down', July 18, 2001). Environment editor Paul Brown does a
fine job of marshalling the evidence and reiterating the conclusion of
authoritative climate scientists that "we should cut greenhouse gas emissions
by 60 to 80% by the middle of the century to stabilise the climate before
things get out of hand". But, without supporting evidence, he then praises
big business for an "extraordinary turnaround" in responding to the threat of
global warming.
Paul Brown makes the remarkable statement that "perhaps
the brightest spot in a gloomy picture has been the extraordinary turnaround
in the views of big business." Brown continues, "With the exception of some
US oil companies with Exxon/ Mobil (Esso in Europe) top of the list, the
business community is reacting rapidly to the threat of global warming." The
supporting statement for this rapid reaction and "extraordinary turnaround"
is the following: "In the last five years companies like Ford, oil companies
like BP and Shell have begun to pour billions into research in new
technologies." This is a partial picture, at best, of what has been
happening.
Oil company green rhetoric is not matched by green actions. BP
- now merged with Amoco and Arco - aims to increase the sales of its solar
energy technology to $1 billion a year by 2010. Shell International - in
an attempt to catch up with BP's solar power initiatives - finally made
a significant move into the market for renewable energy sources in
October 1997. The Anglo-Dutch group announced that it would be investing
$500 million over the following 5 years with the aim of capturing at least 10
per cent of the world market for solar and photovoltaic cells by
2005.
However, these initiatives from corporate giants wishing to
capitalise on potential future market winners in renewables barely dent the
'business as usual' motorcade. Shell's investment in renewables is only 10
per cent of the oil giant's spending on hydrocarbon exploration ($1 billion
annually), 0.8 per cent of its global investment ($12 billion) and only 0.06
per cent of its global sales ($171 billion) - a drop in the barrel, in other
words. In 1999, Shell's renewable division and BP Solar closed down
headquarter operations in the UK and moved abroad, highlighting their lack of
commitment to job creation in Britain's renewable energy sector.
The
US subsidiaries of BP and Shell were members of the Global Climate Coalition,
the infamous fossil fuel lobby group that denies the reality of global
warming, until October 1996 and April 1998, respectively. They withdrew from
the GCC only following massive public pressure on them to
do so.
However, both BP and Shell remain members of the American
Petroleum Institute, which has lobbied the US government not to ratify the
Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, the National Association of Manufacturers
(NAM), comprising much of mainstream US industry, is forthright in its
opposition: "The NAM strongly opposes the accord. Heeding NAM advice, the
Senate in 1997 approved a Byrd (D-WV)/Hagel (R-NE) resolution opposing any
global climate accord that excludes developing nations and/or threatens
serious damage to the U.S. economy. The Kyoto Protocol fails on both
counts. President Bush also opposes Kyoto and is now pursuing a more
reasonable approach to climate change that is based on sound science,
research and technology." (www.nam.org.19.7.01)
The other great voice of US
business, the US Chamber of Commerce, is similarly bent on the destruction of
the Kyoto Protocol. In a letter to the new US president, the US Chamber
wrote: "Global warming is an important issue that must be addressed - but the
Kyoto Protocol is a flawed treaty that is not in the U.S. interest. The U.S.
Chamber agrees with your Administration's assessment - greater scientific
understanding of global warming is necessary to resolve uncertainty
concerning the potential affect of human activity on this phenomenon. Further
research is needed to develop the best strategies to tackle this problem."
(www.uschamber.org 19.7.01)
On its website, the U.S. Chamber proudly declares that
it is the world's largest business federation representing more than three
million businesses and organisations of every size, sector and region. So
much for Brown's "brightest spot in a gloomy picture"!
The election of
George W. Bush, himself an oilman by trade, was achieved through the
application of massive big business financial power. Bush's opposition to the
Kyoto Protocol merely reflects the interests of his backers. Julian Borger of
the Guardian writes, "In the Bush administration, business is the only
voice... This is as close as it is possible to get in a democracy to a
government of business, by business and for business." (Borger, 'All the
president's businessmen', the Guardian, 27.4.01) Robert Reich, Clinton's
former labour secretary adds, "There's no longer any countervailing power in
Washington. Business is in complete control of the machinery of government."
(ibid)
In reality big business is passionately committed to obstructing
even trivial action to combat global warming - the short-term costs are
simply perceived to be too high. The spending of $100 billion on the
National Missile Defence system is favoured for related reasons - responding
to the 'threat' of 'rogue states' involves pouring billions of tax dollars
into the bank accounts of high-tech big business. Likewise, the
entire business-driven globalisation project is an attempt to
generate ever-increasing sales and profits - restraint and responsibility are
not on the agenda.
Last year, BP had a brand relaunch as 'Beyond
Petroleum' featuring its new 'Helios' sunburst logo. Critics retorted that BP
stands for 'Burning the Planet'. BP has portrayed itself as an
environmentally responsible energy company, but this is deceptive. As
Greenpeace UK reported last year, "BP's increase in oil production is wiping
out its commitment to carbon savings many times over. It may claim to be the
leading solar company, but it has the least ambitious investment plans of the
top six solar companies. BP not only has no strategy for getting out of oil,
it is actually speeding up its search for fossil fuels." (Frontier News,
Volume 2 Issue 9, 20 April, 2000).
As Andrew Rowell revealed in 'Green
Backlash' (Routledge, London, 1996) and Sharon Beder in 'Global Spin' (Green
Books, Totnes, 1997), it has become the norm for business to adopt a green
veneer, courtesy of expensive public relations, without actually replacing
damaging business practices with ecologically sustainable activities. US
business spends an estimated $500 million every year in greenwashing. Shell
and BP "spend seven times more on advertising their green credentials than
they spend on environmental projects" (Alasdair Clayre of the Oxford-based
lobby group Millennium Energy Debate, quoted in The Guardian, 12 November,
1999).
The respected London-based Global Commons Institute estimates that
there will be more than two million deaths from climate change-related
disasters worldwide over the next ten years. Damage to property will amount
to hundreds of billions of dollars (Global Commons Institute, letter to
The Guardian, 14 March, 2000. Full text of letter available at www.gci.org.uk/guardlet.html). As Andrew Rowell notes, The only moral and rational
reaction to global warming is disinvestment in the processing of all fossil
fuels. (The Big Issue, 15-21 February, 1999).
SUGGESTED ACTION
Please ask The Guardian
to report the true extent of big business opposition to action on global
warming, drawing attention in particular to the activities of the NAM and US
Chamber of Commerce (unreported anywhere in the mainstream UK press, to our
knowledge). Ask The Guardian to present some basic statistics that describe
investment by big business into renewable energy compared to its ongoing
expansion in oil and gas development.
CONTACT: The Guardian
--Paul Brown, environment correspondent
email to:
paul.brown@guardian.co.uk
--John Vidal,
environment editor
email to:
john.vidal@guardian.co.uk
--Alan Rusbridger,
Guardian editor
email to
alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
--Letters page
email to:
letters@guardian.co.uk
The Guardian article appears at:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,523030,00.html
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Copy your letters to editor@medialens.org
Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts (alerts@medialens.org).
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.MediaLens.org